Leo v. General Electric Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• service on secretary was valid because secretary was obviously a corporate employee and, upon receiving papers, immediately redelivered them to managing agent authorized to receive process
• service of process valid on secretary because she was a corporate employee and she redelivered the summons and complaint to an agent authorized to receive service of process
• case referred to Magistrate Judge for a hearing “to determine whether service was proper.”
• “ ‘If a corporation is subject to jurisdiction, and if the summons is eventually delivered to a servable official, the better approach is to seek to sustain jurisdiction rather than become bogged down in highly cerebral distinctions between types of agents’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Velez v. Vassallo
  S.D. New York· 2002-03-26· cited 65×
• Johnson v. Rao
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 2007-03-22· cited 33×
• Academy of Irm v. LVI Environmental Services, Inc.
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1997-01-16· cited 19×
• Seward & Kissel v. Smith Wilson Co., Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1993-03-02· cited 14×
• Harris v. Howard University, Inc.
  District of Columbia· 1998-10-13· cited 10×
• Breene v. Guardsmark, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1987-12-08· cited 5×
• M. Prusman, Ltd. v. Ariel Maritime Group, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 1989-08-10· cited 4×
• Link Group International, L.L.P. v. Toymax (H.K.) Ltd.
  D. Connecticut· 2000-09-26· cited 3×
• Tadco Construction Corp. v. PERI Framework Systems, Inc.
  E.D. New York· 2006-11-06· cited 2×
• Irma Cohen Johnson v. Gutti Rao
  Mississippi Supreme Court· 2005-10-07
• LINK GROUP INTERN., LLP v. Toymax (HK) Ltd.
  D. Connecticut· 2000-09-26